- Joined
- Sep 9, 2008
- Messages
- 32,634
- Reaction score
- 23,169
Hear what you are saying but I think health is the greater concern. Would much rather have the Pats lock up a bye before week #17 and sit a bunch of players against the Bills. Give them 2 full weeks off even if that costs the #1 seed. Couple of other points:
- Having the #1 seed may more of a liability this year. Assuming PIT/BAL are #5 seed, they could be the lowest remaining seed after wildcard weekend. Would be much better to play wounded Texans or inconsistent Raiders (warm weather teams with a longer trip) and let PIT/BAL beat each other up in the divisionals.
- The Pats last 2 games are at home. Even with a #2 seed, the Pats wouldn't see an airport for over a month after the Denver game.
Get this team relatively healthy/rested and they will be a bear in the playoffs. What about the defense? They are currently playing without 3 starters in the back 7...so of course the results are going to be sketchy. Get McCourty, Chung and Spikes back to 100% health (side benefit of resting up for multiple weeks) and the defense will look much different. Giving Wilfork a play or 2 off sometime might be advisable as well.
Quick aside...do people (and by "people" I mean Dilfer) realize that the top 5 DBs on the Pats depth chart week #1 were McCourty, Dowling, Chung, Barrett and Bodden? Take any other team and remove their top 5 DBs and let me know if their secondary gets picked on. Winning games with Patch Adams, a QB-turned-WR-turned-CB and a random Ventrone covering receivers is pretty amazing if you ask me.
All great points.
I agree that I would be just fine with a #2, as it may better suit us due to the matchups.
If that's the case though, then I may want PIT as the #1, in case we'd need to go there for the AFCGC--rather than BAL.
Just my opinion though.